Skip to main content

Full text of "History And Human Relation"

See other formats


in it In reality it is merely the extension of the
universal habit of men to reflect on the observable
connections between events—beginning, one might say,
with the daily rising of the sun, or the experience of the
trouble that is likely to be provoked if one steals one's
neighbour's food.

If it is asked how this initial view of history—this
view of it as a science—is connected with Christianity,
or it is argued that so mundane a conception of the
subject is actually inconsistent with religion, one may
reply that on the contrary there are reasons for suggesting
that this approach to any science is a specifically Christian
one. It is the view which comes from*regarding the
historian as a person under a certain kind of discipline
for the purpose of examining the ways of Providence
and the structure of the providential order. It does not
deny Providence. It does not hold that events will form
a self-explanatory system without any necessity for the
idea of God. It relegates scientific history to a humble
rSle, therefore—certainly not assuming that the study
of demonstrable events will suffice either to answer the
question whether the hand of God can be found in
history, or to explain why man exists, or to settle ultimate
philosophical problems. And certainly it does not
assume, as the Marxists and so many other secularist
thinkers seem to do, that when we have learned the
history of a thing we shall have achieved its final and
total explanation.

The scientific method that we are discussing seems
on the whole to have come into existence in the way
that has been described—both the natural scientists and